Full Text
Public Service Funding Application Scoresheet Citizen’s Advisory Committee Lewiston, Maine For Public Service applications submitted for the Fiscal Year of July 1, 2014 to June 30, 2015 ---PAGE BREAK--- 1 A. General Instructions 1) Applications are compared according to a common set of criteria. For each criterion there is a special narrative within the application in Section VI that provides the essential information to evaluate the proposal. Criteria: The program... Possible Points See Section VI, answer: Supports the Consolidated Plan and its goals 0 - 35 A Meets a critical or unmet need 0 - 35 B Is within the applicant’s capacity to carry out 0 - 20 C Is cost-effective 0 - 10 D TOTAL POSSIBLE POINTS 0 - 100 2. In evaluating the applications, first go through the applications one by one, and score them using the guidelines below. When you are all done, look at the scores for each factor individually. Did you use consistent principles from the first application to the last? Do the relative differences in scores fairly reflect the differences in application quality? Adjust the scores, as needed, until you are comfortable that they accurately reflect actual differences among applications. 3. At the end of the process, you will have a series of applications in a rank order. The City then has several options for making final funding decisions: a. It can set a target amount for public services funding, then start at the top of the list, and allocate each applicant with the full funding they request, until the money is gone. b. It can use the same process as above, except only allocate each applicant with an amount that seems reasonable and defensible (which may be less than is actually applied for), so that more agencies can be funded. c. It can create a cut-off point on the list based on quality and points, and allocate public service funding to all above the cut-off point (so long as the total allocation is within HUD guidelines). The City’s Community Development Director will decide which of these approaches will be used. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 B. Individual factors FACTOR Supports the Consolidated Plan and its goals SEE SECTION VI Response A WHAT TO LOOK FOR Does the applicant cite specific parts of the Plan, or just talk in generalities? Does the activity contribute to more than one goal of the Plan? Does the activity have a high impact on achieving the goal(s), or just an incidental impact? Has the applicant made any adjustments to its “standard” program in order to have a larger impact on community goals? SCORE LEVELS 30 to 35 – High impact on multiple community goals 24 to 29 – High impact on one community goal 18 to 23 – Moderate impact on multiple community goals 12 to 17 – Moderate impact on one community goal 6 to 11 – Low impact on multiple community goals 0 to 5 – Low impact on one community goal RECOMMENDED SCORE RATIONALE/COMMENT FACTOR Meets a critical or unmet need SEE SECTION VI Response B WHAT TO LOOK FOR Is the need demonstrated by 3rd party studies (United Way, state, etc.)? Is the need demonstrated by internal data (waiting lists, surveys, etc.)? Does the proposed program effectively address the need? Is the effectiveness of the activity documented in any way? What if the program didn’t exist? What difference would it make? SCORE LEVELS 30 to 35 – High unmet need, effective solution 24 to 29 – High impact on one community goal 18 to 23 – Moderate impact on multiple community goals 12 to 17 – Moderate impact on one community goal 6 to 11 – Low impact on multiple community goals 0 to 5 – Low impact on one community goal RECOMMENDED SCORE RATIONALE/COMMENT ---PAGE BREAK--- 3 FACTOR Is within applicant’s capacity to carry out SEE SECTION VI Response C WHAT TO LOOK FOR What is the track record of this organization with the CDBG program? Is it consistently on schedule with spending and reports? Are there external organizations that vouch for this agency’s capacity – i.e., awards, recognition, letters, grant success, etc.? If a new agency, is the program/business plan innovative, forward thinking and realistic? Is the staff qualified and capable to carry out the program? Are the record-keeping systems accurate for financial and performance reporting? SCORE LEVELS 15 to 20 – Exceptional high-performing agency 10 to 14 – Good-performing agency 5 to 9 – Adequate performing agency 0 to 4 – Unproven, evidence for capability not convincing RECOMMENDED SCORE RATIONALE/COMMENT FACTOR Is cost-effective SEE SECTION VI Response D WHAT TO LOOK FOR Does the agency show creativity in stretching dollars, go the extra mile? Would the proposed CDBG funds leverage other money? Is the agency administratively efficient, with a reasonable overhead rate? Does the agency collaborate with others to reduce rent, administrative costs? Are volunteers used creatively to stretch impacts? SCORE LEVELS 8 to 10 – Shows creativity, energy, forward-thinking, in stretching the service impacts of their dollars 4 to 7 – Shows adequate effort, has some good ideas. 0 to 3 – Unexceptional. Makes no special effort in this area. RECOMMENDED SCORE RATIONALE/COMMENT